I don't get your drift. There is no requirement for the web server to be in the same location as the virtual server. Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCP+I Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.readymaids.com - we know IT www.akomolafe.com Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Renouf Sent: Wed 10/19/2005 8:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices Would you put the admin site on a server not at that location? Because if you wouldn't then that won't help much since if you had another server to put the admin site on at the remote location then that would be a good place to put the f/p services. Phil On 10/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You can separate the 2 roles. You can put the admin site on a non-dc server. Sincerely, Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCP+I Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.readymaids.com - we know IT www.akomolafe.com Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Al Mulnick Sent: Wed 10/19/2005 6:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices Strange, I was just having this conversation today with a co-worker. :) My thoughts? I'd say make it a GC and put the f/p in the virtual. Why? because you still need to protect the physical, but the virtual you can give out access to. The downside is that the virtual machine requires IIS (in Microsoft products) meaning you have a vector for attack. But nothing that requires changing the security otherwise for the GC. I prefer not to put IIS on a GC for security reasons, but if you can get away without it then I should think that this method would provide greater ability to secure it. Keep in mind that physical access is still warranted. It's just that you wouldn't have to worry about somebody taking the GC home on a USB key like they otherwise could ;) It's not pretty no matter which way you turn IMHO. Could be better. Al -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 11:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices I assume you are refering to the fact that the the host could be compromised over the network and the virtual hard drive or virtual machine itself simply copied. (Just for the record, this is covered in the white paper. Did not mean to imply that it is not. Security in this respect is refered over to NTFS permissions). So given that you could have a single physical machine at a branch office and that you must have a DC and F/P service, what is the prefered configuration? -- nme P.S. thanks for keeping this thread going. ________________________________ From: Dean Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:42 PM To: Send - AD mailing list Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices "Does placing the DC inside a virtual machine add any security? Would it be harder for someone with physical access to compromise the DC? The white paper does not really make this clear. Also, I am assuming that a host machine would be a domain member, right? Does it authenticate off the virtual DC?" <Dean> Virtual DCs effectively weaken the broader-definition of security in a number of ways including the context of physical access ... this is due primarily to the relative ease with which the entire DC's state can be duplicated, subsequently, becoming portable and reproduced in a running state elsewhere with little to no effort. The host machine has no bearing ... it's rather like saying "the rack in which the server is physically housed has to be a domain member" (or any further extension of that particular metaphor). Keep in mind the VM (for the most part) doesn't even realize it's virtual. </Dean> -- Dean Wells MSEtechnology * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://msetechnology.com <http://msetechnology.com/> ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 12:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices Thanks for the thoughts. And thanks Tony for the reference -- just finished reading it. Unfortunately, deploying the DC at HQ or simply authenticating over the WAN is not really an option. The WAN links are ok (and getting better) but are located in places where environmental (as in the weather) conditions often cause short interruptions. Does placing the DC inside a virtual machine add any security? Would it be harder for someone with physcial access to compromise the DC? The white paper does not really make this clear. Also, I am assuming that a host machine would be a domain member, right? Does it authenticate off the virtual DC? [1] Thanks again. -- nme [1] This sort of reminds me of the scene in Animal House when they talk about the "whole universe as we know it existing under the fingernail of some other giant being..." Whoa, dude! ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices Other important factors in this scenario must be the physical and logical security of the server housing the DC role. 1. Will the server be securely locked away in the branches? If not, do not deploy a DC. 2. Do you trust the file server admins to have physical access to the server hosting the DC role? 3. Who administers the server that hosts the file and DC roles? Are they also trusted? When designing the branch office, I would always ask the questions below, too: 1. Is a local DC required? i.e. what are the drawbacks if a DC is not deployed? 2. Is logon/startup traffic over the WAN larger than replication traffic over the WAN? If not, consider not deploying a local DC. 3. Does a local DC offer redundancy in the event of a WAN failure? If other apps are accessed over the WAN, then consider deploying the DC at a central location and not at the branch. hth, neil ___________________________ Neil Ruston Global Technology Infrastructure Nomura International plc ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Murray Sent: 13 October 2005 01:12 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices Here's a link to a Microsoft document that covers what you need to do to run a production DC on Virtual Server 2005. http://tinyurl.com/5enjd Tony ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger Sent: Thursday, 13 October 2005 11:30 a.m. To: [email protected] Subject: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices Hi - Just to follow up on the design thread.... Since I am placing DCs in small branch offices is there a value in using Virtual Server 2005 to create separate virtual boxes (DC & file server) running on the same physical box? Some users have administrative access to the file server, and I'd love to keep them off the DCs. I am also curious about optimal physical and virtual drive configurations for such a box. I reviewed the thread here about Virtual Domain Controllers but it seemed to focus on using them as backups. I am talking about production. Any thoughts most welcome. -- nme ________________________________ This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank You. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the NZ Electronic Transactions Act 2002.. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal at Gen-i ________________________________ PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by law, accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness of, or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as, investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand, London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
